War. Hooah. What is it good for?

So my friend the President keeps saying we're at war. But what does that mean? Traditionally, a "War" meant beween two countries. And when we went in and slapped the Taliban out of Afghanistan, I was all about that. And Iraq, that was a war for the 45 seconds it took to kick their ass. But we're not at war with "Iraq" anymore; their democratically elected government is presumably our ally; we're there to train and help them fight the insurgency within that country.

So we're left with the abstract "War on Terror." Now, no one denies that there are terrorists out there, groups of terrorists, and countries that support terrorists. And if there's evidence that a country is supporting terrorists, (actual evidence, not fairytale evidence), we should certainly go to war.

But a war with not a country but an abstract concept, how do you win? At what point can we declare "We've won the War on Terror?" As long as we're the strongest, richest, bestest country in the world, there will always be people who "hate our freedom." We will always be an excuse for any country's leader who can't get things right. I can't imagine there will ever be a point where a U.S. leader, even a wimpy Democrat, would be stupid enough to say "We've won! Terrorists aren't a problem anymore! We can just relax and let our guard down! Take your nail clippers on the plane! Go crazy!"

In the movie "The Incredbles" Dash says "If everybody is special, then no one is." If we're at war with terror now, than we always have been and always will. If the threat of terrorism makes you a "War President", then Clinton was a War President, Bush #1 was a War President, Reagan was a War President, even Carter was a War President (remember the Iranian hostages? I'm not saying Carter did a great job with that situation, but he also didn't use it as an excuse to spy on our phone calls.) Reagan was president during the Cold War, and he never used it as an excuse to do whatever he wanted to do.

And while we're on the subject of GWB's abuses of power (subtext, baby) it's not the Democrats that should be mad. Because when GWB ignores Congress, he's ignoring a Republican Congress, and when he ignores the Judicial branch ("Warrants? We don't need no stinky warrants!") he's ignoring judges appointed mainly by Republicans.

And why is it a bad idea to let the president spy on our phone calls? I'll agree that the president is only doing it for totally noble reasons, and therefore doesn't feel the need to have judicial or congressional oversight. But what if some nanny-stater Democrat gets elected president, who wants to raise our taxes and help the gays and tell us how we should live our lives? And the precendent is set for warrantless domestic spying? If someone who is secretly communist and wants to be a dictator gets elected, the domestic spy systems that are in place make it that much easier to destroy conservative freedom fighters.

As always, Give me liberty or give me death.